SARNAM SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Sarnam Singh, Kishen Lal and Ram Phool alias Man Phool who were tried by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 368, Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100 fine. Their conviction and sentence were affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) In revision it has been argued before me that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try this case. It is said that under Section 368, Indian Penal Code, the accused who wrongfully conceals or keeps in confinement a kidnapped or abducted girl shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge or for the same purpose as with that or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement. The argument is that it is possible that according to circumstances an offence under Section 368, Indian Penal Code, might be punishable in the same manner as an offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, or as an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. An offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, is triable by a Court of Session, Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class, but an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code is triable exclusively by a Court of Session.

(3.) In the present case the prosecution case is that the girl in question was wrongfully concealed for the purpose of forcing her to illicit intercourse and therefore the present accused would be liable to punishment in the same manner as an accused under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. The present offence under Section 368, Indian Penal Code, according to the contention of the learned advocate for the applicants, was triable exclusively by the Court of Session, inasmuch as an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, is exclusively triable by a Court of Session.